Having flown all the tail dragger versions of the RVs, i would agree with Paul and Mel in their assessments.How's the 3 fly compared to say the 4 or the 6?
Had a 6 for a long time, I've been contemplating a 4, but I rarely fly with anyone, so I've been eyeing the 3 a little bit.
Many accurate answers but surprised no one replied "with lift and thrust."How's the 3 fly
I came here to say precisely this.Many accurate answers but surprised no one replied "with lift and thrust."
Here are some numbers on the -3 to support the group praise: with a 160hp stock Lycoming, 3-blade 68-70 Catto, day VFR panel, on a standard day at sea-level, I'll see 2400ft/min max climbout on takeoff (95mph indicated), 200mph top speed at 2750rpm (although I don't do that much b/c it's very noisy), 170mph cruise (much quieter) at 2450rpm, 6.5gph local flights at 5000' ; takeoff requires about 5 seconds, short final at 75 (70 if I want to stop sooner). Liability insurance is about $300/yr. The -3 has fit my mission very well for the 30 years since I built one: best performance at least cost. Cheers!How's the 3 fly compared to say the 4 or the 6?
Had a 6 for a long time, I've been contemplating a 4, but I rarely fly with anyone, so I've been eyeing the 3 a little bit.
Or more accurately... "with money"Many accurate answers but surprised no one replied "with lift and thrust."
Takes a lot of money to create thrust.Or more accurately... "with money"
I a,y dying to fly a taildragger 9. What was your impression?Having flown all the tail dragger versions of the RVs
I have flown every RV model (except those ending in a “5”) enough to pretty definitively say that the -3 is the most enjoyable flying machine - from a pilot handling standpoint - of any of them. Unless you have a very heavy nose (think 200 hp, metal C/S….), it is fingertip flying. Ours is full IFR with an Oregon Aero seat, so fairly heavy (as -3’s go) - but with an IO-320 and a composite C/S, the CG is back where it belongs and the word I most often use when describing it is “delightful”. If I just want some purely enjoyable time in the air, the RV-3 gets the nod - its why its usually up front in our hangar.
As the airplanes get progressively bigger, they move away from this perfect little package of pilot joy - but the -4 and -6 are close…depending a lot on how the ailerons are shaped and rigged - so I wouldn’t dismiss them. But unless you’ve flown them all, its hard to compare them, since they are all better than anything else you have likely flown as a typical PP.
The RV-3 would probably be the last of our fleet that I’d want to part with.
If its built to plans it shoudl be perfect. The shape is sometimes missed by folks - if you imagine the folded trailing edge to be a segment of the circle, the upper and lower surfaces of the aileron shoudl converge to be perfectly straight until they hit the tangent point of the circle - neither concave or convex. Then it’ll fly the way Van’s intended!Hi Paul
Just curious as to your statement about shape and rigging of ailerons? Do you mean the closer to VAN'S plans the better, or do you have a different formula?
Thanks